MEAT BOARD’S POLICY

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 19991, 7 November 1927, Page 9

MEAT BOARD’S POLICY

SALES OF FREEZING WORKS STATEMENT BY CHAIRMAN. Tho following statement is issued by the chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board in reply to criticisms of the Board’s policy:— I have, noted the statements made by Mr Begg, of Dunedin, in connection with the attitude of the Meat Board towards the sale of freezing works in New Zealand. As the matter has been one that has created a considerable amount of criticism and discussion, it is probably as well to review the circumstances that led up to the Board’s decision and actions: — When the Meat Board was formed, it was at a time of great depression in New Zealand. The finances, not only of the individual farmer, but of the whole of the Dominion, were seriously affected and Parliament passed the Meat Export Control Act of 1921-22, recognising the serious condition in which the- farming industry was placed, and the necessity for taking immediate action. Tho Act gave the Board exceedingly wide powers that, were severely criticised at the time, but are. I believe, admitted by the great bulk of the people in the Dominion to-day as being wise and necessary. A Dangerous Crisis. One of the serious results of the slump conditions was the grave financial position in which so many of the freezing works were placed. This gave the Board very great concern: Wc viewed the conditions operating in the Argentine, where the big meat packing firms had absolute power over all freez ing space and shipping, and where tin farmer had absolutely no choice in th< disposal of his meat, except by selling to the large firms that were operating there. This has been since recogniseu by the farmers and the Argentine Gov eminent, and several attempts made tu find a solution, but apparently without avail. In reviewing the position in New Zealand, the Board realised at that time, that, in the condition of many of the freezing works, there was a serious danger of overseas interests purchasing the various key works and ob taining what might becomo a stranglehold on the frozen meat industry of the Dominion. Upon the Board’s shoulders, as representing the producers, lay the responsibility of maintaining such control over the slaughtering and export of stock that the produce; could in no sense be prejudiced, but would have provided for him a free way between his farm and the con sumcr in Great Britain, under the mos> free and economical conditions.

Check on Outside Interests. On May 1, 1923, the Board passed and published tho following resolution, which sets out and clearly defines the policy of the Board in connection with the slaughtering of stock in the Dominion: — ”In connection, with rumours that oversea meat interests are contemplating tho purchase of freezing works in the Dominion, the chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers Board, Mr David Jones, recently stated that the Board had had this matter under consideration for some time, and had decided that it would do everything in its power to discountenance any such purchase or the erection of works in the Dominion. ‘ 1 The Board is unanimously of the opinion that it is not in the best interests of the meat producers of the Dominion that any such purchase should be made, or that oversea concerns should acquire any further interest in New Zealand freezing works, or that new works should be erected by other than New Zealand interests. “The Board has now decided that, in the event of such purchase or purchases, or erection of freezing works by oversea interests, without the approval of tho Board, it will take such action as will prevent such interests controlling the. meat going through such freezing works. ’ ’

The above communique was given full publicity by the press throughout the Dominion at the time, and no exception was taken to the Board’s attitude in the matter by any New Zea-land-owned freezing company. It was generally recognised as a very wise policy to keep our frozen meat works from falling into outside hands, and to maintain an open-door policy and freedom of trading. To those conversant with the freezing works of the Dominion, it will be at once recognised that there are some works —it would not matter to whom they belong—the selling of which would not come in conflict with the policy of the- Board as laid down. This was recognised by the Board when the above resolution was passed and was the reason why “without the approval of the Board” was inserted in the resolution.

Two Well-Known Cases. Th© Poverty Bay case is well known. There, one farmers’ company was in financial difficulties. There was another large farmers’ freezing company adjacent thereto and an old works belonging to an overseas company, which the latter intended re-building. An offer was made by this overseas company to purchase the farmers’ works, which was in financial difficulties, and to close their own works. The Board considered that it would bo entirely in the interests of the district that these works should be sold to the oversea company in preference to the re-build-ing of the qjd works, and placing the load upon the producers of that district of having to carry three works instead of two —which were ample to kill all requirements. This policy has been entirely justified by results. The difficulty again arose with the Wellington Meat Export Company’s works. An offer was made by an overseas company to purchase these works, and the Board considered that the key position in which these works were placed was such that it would be unjustifiable to allow them to pass out of the hands of New Zealand interests, and advised the Government not to consent to the transfer of the license. The policy of the Board on that occasion was much criticised, but I believe that, if a vote of the producers of New Zealand were taken to-day, they would be in almost unanimous support of the action w’hich the Board took. Values Not Depreciated. It ’ is persistently stated that the Board is depreciating the value of the

securities of other works, but, when the whole position is reviewed, it must be recognised that the Board’s policy has had just the opposite effect, for, if the key works of New Zealand had been sold and a combination similar to the Argentine had taken place, the other works in the Dominion would have had no chance of standing up to the- competition and must have become of less value than they arc to-day, and a number would probably be valueless. According to the press report, Mr Begg raises the question of the South Otago works and makes a very careful and deliberate charge against tho Board and the Government for de preciating the value of these works. The Board has had no occasion to consider his company’s works, but my own opinion is that, if his company had an offer to purchase their works and an application was made to the Government for a transfer, the Board would recommend that the application be granted, because the situation of these works is such that it could not be looked upon as one that would materially affect the position, or come in conflict with the Board’s policy. There are a number of other works situated in New Zealand in similar circumstances, and no possible injury to the New Zealand producers could result from their sale to any purchaser, and consequently the Board would not be justified in refusing to recommend 3 transfer of the license. The Board’s Job. I decline to accept the charge- that Mr Begg and others have levelled against the Board, but desire to place the whole facts in front of the people of the Dominion and am perfectly satisfied to accept the verdict of the producers. The Board docs not wish to do any injustice, nor has it done so, but the job that has been given to it, and which is of paramount importance, is to safeguard the interests of the farmers of New Zealand and to see that the man who actually produces the beef, mutton and lamb, is under no undue handicap in the strenuous competition in the world’s markets, in which we have no protection.